9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 6,60,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed income in respect of Taleigao property. 3. The short facts of the case are as under : The Assessee is a closely held private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing tyre cord and twine etc. There was a search under Section 132 on 17.11.2009 in the case of Shri Suresh V. Parulekar and his group of cases including the Appellant company. During the course of search at the residence of Shri Suresh Parulekar a copy of e-mail written by Shri Harish Jain to Shri Suresh Parulekar was found. Shri Harish Jain is a family friend of promoters of M/s. Emaar MGF Land Pvt. Ltd. and also of Shri Suresh Parulekar. A copy of the e-mail was also found from the laptop of Shri Satish ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . received by you including draft amounts. Please do not treat the last property (c) in two names as the only unfinished job but all of them that you can do and clear up all the matters. Once you have understood the whole thing, there will be various ways that we can try and settle the matters retrieve the best situation. I am sending this email so that once you see it and work out the possibilities then everything can be done. Thanking you, With Kind Regards, Harish Jain 4. Based on the above content of e-mail, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of ₹ 6,60,00,000/- to the returned income as undisclosed income against the sale of land at Taleigao. 5. The matter carried to CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /- was on-money. The deposition of Mr. Harish Jain was out of context and had nothing to do with this transaction as the property does not belong to the Appellant. Therefore, the statement of Mr. Harish Jain did not have much relevance in the total gamut of affairs. Therefore, there was no evidence of on-money payment. Addition on inconclusive facts, without any enquiry, without any corroborative evidence is not correct. Therefore the addition made is deleted. Therefore, ground nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 14 of the above assessment year w.r.t. Taleigao property are allowed. Therefore, the appeal is allowed. 6. The learned DR submitted that assessee as well as Shri Harish Jain failed to furnish the comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion filed before CIT(A) and he also relied upon the order of CIT(A). The Learned AR submitted that Mapusa Urban Co-op. Bank had auctioned Taleigao property for which Mrs. Nilima Satoskar was one of the bidder alongwith Shitij Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. To withdraw the tender M/s. Shitij Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. has paid ₹ 23,00,000/- to Mrs. Nilima Satoskar which she has declared as her income in return A.Y. 2008-09. The Assessee had no role to play. The sale deed has been executed between Mapusa Urban Co-op. Bank and M/s. Shitij Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and no other party is involved in this transaction. The Assessee never seller or confirming party in this property. Therefore, CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 8. We have heard the rival con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
